ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2020
[Diagnosis of contact allergy in practice using current guidelines].
Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural rubber latex allergy: causes, symptoms, and modern diagnostic methods.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2026Review
- Patch testing in occupational dermatology: Practical aspects in relation to the conditions in Germany.Allergologie select · 2024Review
- Article
- [New allergens for occupational dermatology?]Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2021Review
- [Palmoplantar contact dermatitis].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the case of a contact allergy, there is only allergen avoidance instead of causal therapy. If the allergen is not identified, dermatitis persists, which is a major burden for patients. Patch testing is the diagnostic standard for detecting contact sensitization. Based on a systematic literature search, the German patch test guideline was updated and methodologically upgraded.
objectivesThe most important practical aspects of patch testing with contact allergens and drugs are presented. MATERIALS AND
methodsCurrent consensus guidelines for performing patch tests as well as the results of a supplementary selective literature search are summarized.
resultsAccording to the patch test guideline (AWMF registry no. 013-018, 2019), the baseline series, special series and, if necessary, test preparations prepared from the patient's own contact substances should be tested routinely. A new evidence-based recommendation is a late reading after 7-10 days, as otherwise numerous patch test reactions will be missed. Antihistamines may weaken the cellular reactions of the patch test and should be discontinued with a latency of 5 half-lives. Finally, if a false-negative patch test result is suspected, it is recommended to perform a strip patch test according to the validated protocol.
conclusionsAll patients with a suspected contact allergy should receive a guideline-based patch test at an early stage. Targeted patch testing identifies clinically relevant allergens and provides suggestions for further systematic investigations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.